pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
PvXwiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved Build-Specific Issues/Archive 9
Samug is a sock, perhaps?--19px[[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] (''talk''/ ) 16:39, 6 October 2007 (CEST) :His IP address is different than Eroth's (the author). [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 19:05, 6 October 2007 (CEST) 0-0-0 is a bit low just for relying on nearby, eh? — Skakid9090 16:52, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :Done. -- Armond Warblade 17:02, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::Reason for removing my vote was incorrect, so i re-added it. There is another build, with a similar name and function.Bob fregman 23:14, 9 October 2007 (CEST) Rapta's vote reason that this is a dupe build is already covered here: Build talk:Rt/N Explosive Creation#Outdated, He says it has no ability to keep minions alive, though it actually seeks to destroy it's own minions, so that's moot, and he says it has less utility than the outdated build, which is outright false and the outdated has zero utility, while this has AoE ally heal and condition removal. He arguement that his vote shouldn't be removed should be a clear indicator that he worries that it will be. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 20:10, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :I would deal with it, but I'd like another admin to take a more objective look at it, as I removed his vote the first time. -- Armond Warblade 21:18, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::Meh, I gave a good 'nuff reason for that. Rapta, if it works, a 0 is incorrect. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop/Halo 3 File Share) 21:26, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::What you fail to realize is that a build should be able to keep its minions alive in between battles. I prefer not having my minions exploding mindlessly after a battle is finished. But then again, that's just me. Someone with "different" thinking may see wasting minions as beneficial. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:03, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::You only need a couple minions available to bomb with effectively, which you can keep around just through casting jagged bones every time it refreshes. That should keep at least 3 minions alive between battle, possibly more, which is plenty. Not to mention, since you're just bombing with the minions they just have to remain standing between battles, not healthy, so as long as you're not just wandering around aimlessly, you should have a couple alive at the beginning of your next battle even just doing nothing. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:09, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::Or you can have more and be a better bomber and suck less. Then again, there are people out there who can't do that properly either. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:10, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::Find us a ninth skill slot Rapta. What are you going to dump that doesn't drop the damage a huge amount? Besides, this isn't one of those builds where you need a lot of minions - just a few will suffice. -- Armond Warblade 22:12, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::The existing one comes to mind. It has BotM and Flesh of My Flesh! Oh, look at that! — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:13, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::::And it lacks putrid flesh and spirit's gift? -- Armond Warblade 22:15, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::::It also lacks Jagged Bones and Smabling Horror to triple up your explosion damage with the Rt enchants while keeping the disease you spread off yoru teammates. :::::::::You can't have everything in one build. This build goes for bombs with big damage and high degen, not swarming. You could swarm with a bunch of minions and Blood of the Master and just spam death nova, but this does more damage and more degen, as well as has some utility, too. If you still think it's bad, in your opinion, feel free to vote it poorly, but it doesn't qualify for a zero, and you need to put in a vote reason that makes sense. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:17, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::And the existing one was vetted over countless variants of itself, including Nightfall variants. They were placed in the "variants" section. Go figure. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:18, 8 October 2007 (CEST) The existing build was made pre-nightfall and didn't take into account those skills. They were added, in a huge list, at the end of it as a variant, but the build doesn't fully make use of their synergy like the new one. In short, the old one is outdated, and you can't fix that just by adding a list of a dozen skills and says that any build that uses them is simply a variant. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:21, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :How exactly do you know that? Countless Nightfall variants were merged into the build from the beginning of Nightfall release. You wouldn't know that because you have not been here for such a long time. The existing one was chosen because it had those features that I listed above. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:24, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::(edit conflict)How exactly WOULD someone find that out...I mean, it's almost like you'd need like...some function that would allow you to see previous edits and versions of a page...god I wish we had something like that. ::Anyway, if you wanna discuss that, take it to the discussion on marking the other build as outdated. I had previously agreed to mark this as a variant, which you even fought with that, for no apparent reason, but an admin said the old one's outdated in favor of this. So it's being vetted now. ::As such, if you're going to vote on it, you need to put in an acceptable reason for your vote and not abuse zero ratings to persue a vendetta against the build, or against the creator, I'm not sure which. Either way, your vote's still unacceptable, via policy, and has been removed 3 times by 2 seperate admins. Unless you have something to say about THAT, move the discussion elsewhere. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:29, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::Rapta, you're doing absolutely nothing for proving why your 0-1-0 vote should have stayed. A 3-2-3 or maybe a 2-2-2 I could see, but not 0-1-0. -- Armond Warblade 22:26, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::That's MY point, here. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:29, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::It should stay, for the reasons mentioned in the vote. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:28, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::Two seperate admins(one, twice) and another user say you're wrong. You've been outvoted in spades. Give it up. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:35, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::His vote stays and mine doesn't...you guys make so much sense.--19px[[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] (''talk''/ ) 22:38, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::You make it sound like an Admin's opinion is worth more than a regular user's. ::::::And on the issue of Victoryisyours' vote, that should have remained as well. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:40, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::Perhaps I made it sound that way, but that's not what I mean. I mean your opinion of your vote's viability is 3:1 opposed. It generally breaks the guidlines for an acceptable vote. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:45, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::::Don't make up policies. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:47, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::::1-0-0 is most definitely not appropriate for this build, and your reasons make no sense whatsoever. It may not be the most original idea but it does work far better than you rated it. Lord Belar 22:50, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::::You vote violates points 1, 4 and 5 under Vote Removal under the Real Vetting policy. I'm not making anything up. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:51, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::You're misreading my vote then. I couldn't care less about who wrote it. I don't believe it is a viable replacement for the existing build, it's less effective (via reasons in my vote), not innovative and not useful in most areas. It's not attacking anyone. Every point in it is based on facts. Again, stop QQing about my vote and improve the build, if you want my vote to change so badly. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:55, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::::::No, I don't think I am. I think you're a troll, you think I'm a troll. We've both admitted such over the course of the last 24 hours, and over the last 24 hours you've started arguements on almost every page I watch, targetting me, as well as putting 0 votes on both builds I had being rated at the time. So yes, I think it's a personal vendetta. It's been agreed to be more effective than the other to the point of making the other obselete by several users, I agree it's not innovative, though it is usefull in several areas. You don't seem to be able to produce the facts you claim your vote's based on. I don't want your vote changed, just removed. Which it already has been, twice I think? Yet you keep putting it back - which I think violates another policy? But I can't remember which off the top of my head. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:07, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::::I never said you were a troll. I couldn't care less about what you do; taking care of trolls is the administrator's job. However, writing bad builds is something I do care about, and I take appropriate measures to ensure bad builds do not go too far on this wiki. Again, you say you want my vote removed, but you really want it changed. Also, you might want to know that there is no policy governing the removal of valid votes. That doesn't give authors much room outside of fixing their build to try and generate additional support. Every single argument you've made regarding your build has been the same, each being refuted by different people. And now you're going try and make this a policy issue? — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:11, 8 October 2007 (CEST) Yes, but there is policy governing what ISN'T a valid vote, and the removal of such. Yours fits that policy as invalid, and has already been removed, but you refuse to comply with policy. Also, you did admit you thought I was a troll, here, so don't lie, it makes you look like a small person. FYI, no, I really don't want you vote changed - just removed. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:14, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :Also, Victory is Yours put his vote back, which apparently states 650+ damage won't kill most players, or even pressure anyone. Not sure how that works out. Also, he seems to think you can run away from the explosion. It's not an over-time AoE. If you run away after it goes off, you still already took the damage. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:14, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::So you're always going to have 8 minions, and they're always going to die at the same exact time? And your foe won't have any sort of self heal stopping him from dying whatsoever?--19px[[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] (''talk''/ ) 23:16, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::You may want to reread the build notes. 650+ is from ONE minion exploding. Not 8. Having to heal through damage to survive also constitutes "pressure". Also, if you had 2 minions explode, the damage would be higher, meaning you'd generally need more than just a little healing to survive. This is venturing into build discussion again. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:21, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::Again, you're making up facts about your build. Dealing maybe 200 damage to a single person is the best case scenario for minion bombing builds. That being said, we're venturing into build-specific discussion again. That doesn't belong here. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:16, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::The number 650+ is taken from the calculations listed under notes on the build's page. If you have a problem with them, discuss them there. I simply said that vote was invalid because it's not based on facts, it's based on fallacies. I.E: an invalid vote, just like yours. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:18, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::No, your argument is based on fallacies. Your logic is completely twisted right now. You expect to be able to always have the best case scenario in your builds - something that is impossible to achieve on your builds (specifically). Please do not repeat others' arguments to them, when they are obviously lopsided against yours and prove to be of little support for your argument against them. Again, most of your arguments aren't even valid; you're coming up with policies, implying/making up false facts for your builds, and twisting game logic. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:21, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::That being said, unless you're going to go back on topic, stop posting here outside of your general principle of "give me the last word, I want the last word". — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:23, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::You say my logic is twisted, but you can't point out how. Without backing up your statement, it's just hot air from a buffoon. As for best case scenario, I doubt having ONE minion alive would constitute a best-case scenario for any minion build...which is all I expected from my notes. As for repeating someone's arguement to them, I think one should be required to back up one's own statements. Do you feel differently? If your statements are lopsided and little use against mine, that's not my fault. :::::I'm still on topic. Topic: your vote is invalid per Real Vetting policy, and you apparently can't prove otherwise. If you can, do so. :::::I'm seeing a lot more arguements based on the concept of 'getting the last word' from you than from me. You continually restate your previous argument without doing anything to counter my rebuttal to it. I don't see how that accomplishes anything besides 'getting the last word'. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:27, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::Again, you're using false facts to back up your flawed argument. You say that I haven't proved how my vote is invalid, while I've repeatedly done so inside the vote, as well as uncovering another falsely removed vote. Again, you've just restated my argument and are trying (but failing) to prove an invalid point. Unless you're going to come up with a valid reason to disprove of my current vote on the build (again, it's been proven to be valid, you outlined all possible violations of Real Vetting it could have made, all were incorrect). Unless you're going to fix your faulty logic (note that I am being forced to repeat myself, again) there is no reason to why my vote should be altered/removed outside of you fixing your own build. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:33, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::Yeah, you ARE repeating yourself again, imagine that. And no, you haven't 'proven' anything. You've whined and moaned a bit, and yelled repeatedly "I'm innocent!" and lied once about your possible motives for violating NPA...but not proven anything. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:39, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::Dude, you're a Ritualist primary minion master in AB without damage mitigation or healing outside of a three second cast requiring bodies nearby, and you're QQing about getting zeroed. I can count four classes that could wreck your build without any kind of special attention at all and minimal danger to themselves. Not builds, classes. --InternetLOL 23:34, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::You may want to note the same thing could be said about the previous (outdated) build and it received an "Excellent". — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:39, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::Again, a false statement. The answer is "no, it can't". — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:40, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::::No what can't? Can't what? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:46, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::Your statement. It can't be applied to the other build. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:49, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::I'm looking at the page and I'm not seeing any mention of that. Also, I see the old build is tagged for PvE only, so what exactly were you talking about? --InternetLOL 23:43, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::::This isn't a discussion of the build. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:46, 8 October 2007 (CEST) To anyone reading this discussion, both of you look like trolls, and you aren't getting anywhere by continuing this. Reithan- It's not the best build in the world, stop complaining. Rapta- Your vote is still too low, even for this. Go rant on each other's talk pages, but this probably isn't the best place for an argument which is rapidly getting personal. Lord Belar 23:47, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :This is pertaining specifically to the build and the apparant claimed "invalidity" of my vote. And to do that, he's trying to prove my vote invalid with regards to the comments I made on the vote. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:49, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::That just adds yet another person who thinks your vote's invalid. And I agree this argument is personal, it has been since Rapta started attacking every page I'm on last night. If anyone can get him to stop, I'll be incredibly grateful. As to both looking like trolls, yeah, I'd have to agree. I guess it's true that when you fight with someone slinging mud you always gonna get some on you. In that regard I'm not repsonding to this conversation anymore unless something changes here. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:56, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :: Rapta's vote isnt too low, builds that are OBVIOUS knock-offs of other builds shouldnt get vetted. Reithan is just trying to force the vetting of his build. Alpha fireborn 23:51, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::The other build's been marked as outdated, in favor of this one. (Not by me) — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 23:56, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::I noticed, he's been doing that a lot recently. I was hoping to get them both to stop arguing, but it didn't seem to work. Lord Belar 23:53, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::I'm done. Keep him from starting a new arguement or further escalating this one and I'm 100% done. I've been wanting this to stop since last night, but he's not only continued each arguement, but started numerous new ones. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ :Reithan, you're right. This isn't a discussion about the build, this is a discussion about a vote on the build, and that means genuine concerns for the build are acceptable when they're related to the vote. You'll notice several of the admins are notorious for low ratings, and that's for good reason. PvX is (correct me if I'm wrong) a repository for good builds, not 'just fine' builds. Your build is apparently pretty good in PvE, but as long as the AB tag is there I can't see how you can argue Rapta's vote is undeserved. --InternetLOL 23:54, 8 October 2007 (CEST) If the other minion bomber is outdated, update it. In a bit, I'm probably going to delete this dupe. --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']]/sysop 00:09, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :That was my eventual conclusion when original accused of being a dupe (once I fully understood the 'scope' of 'dupe'). However, I still have yet to be given any guidance on how to go about updating an already-vetted build. How? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 00:11, 9 October 2007 (CEST) ::All of you stop QQing about this. even if he changed his vote to a 2-2-2, its still trash, so who cares how badly in trash it is; theres not a "useless", "even more useless", and "utter crap" section for trash builds, they all just get thrown in there.— [[User:Cheese Slaya|'Cheese Slaya']] (Talk) 00:14, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :::Outside of arguable invalid votes, it's received 3.6 or above from every voter, so hardly trash. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 00:20, 9 October 2007 (CEST) ::Change it to what it supposedly should be, although I'd recommend discussing any drastic changes on the talk page first. If the changes are particularly significant, perhaps put it back into testing. --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']]/sysop 00:16, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :::So, is just adding this as a variant bar on that build's page too drastic of a change? What should be the first step? I think this build > that build, several people agree with me, how can I try to get that build updated to be more like this build, as you are saying they're just 'dupe' variants anyway? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 00:20, 9 October 2007 (CEST) ::::Oh, if you're not deleting the 'dupe' immediately, you may want to notice that there's another vote with 'dupe' as reasoning for a low rating - which you've already removed a vote for, and Victory is Yours is still referencing needing 8 minions to explode simultaneously for the damage listed, which isn't mentioned anywhere other than his vote and is outright wrong. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 00:26, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :::::You're using the term "dupe" as an excuse to remove ratings, while in fact, there are substantiated points besides the "dupe" portion of the reason that make up for the rating. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 00:41, 9 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::the build is a dupe, and it sucks at what it does. i stand by my vote. Alpha fireborn 00:55, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::I'm not arguing with either of you, anymore. I made my statement, the admin/mod/sysop whatever in charge of this area can make their decision based on that. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 00:59, 9 October 2007 (CEST) (resent indent) builds gone, if you want your version still, you should probably put it under the current one's varients or in your user page. Alpha fireborn 01:03, 9 October 2007 (CEST) ratings on the build give reference to ROF not being on the build when it clearly is... Alpha fireborn 03:48, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :edit, my bad, forgot to change the : to a | when i copy + pasted Alpha fireborn 03:49, 9 October 2007 (CEST) ::(edit conflict)The author changed the bar and moved it back to testing from trash, so I assume he would like the old votes removed. -- Wizardboy777(T/ ) 03:50, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :::Frvwfr2 took care of it. -- Wizardboy777(T/ ) 11:04, 9 October 2007 (CEST) Looks like some sockpuppetry going on. Check the votes. [[User:Viet |'۷ïεד'ИǺмЄŠЄ]].''' 07:20, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :Fixed [[User:Viet |۷ïεד'''ИǺмЄŠЄ]].' 07:31, 9 October 2007 (CEST) Skaid9090's vote needs inspection. Lord Belar 04:39, 5 October 2007 (CEST) :No. — Skakid9090 04:43, 5 October 2007 (CEST) ::Elaborate. Lord Belar 04:44, 5 October 2007 (CEST) :::I did on the rating page. — Skakid9090 04:45, 5 October 2007 (CEST) ::::You don't play PvE much, do you? --InternetLOL 04:55, 5 October 2007 (CEST) :::::Read your talk, Skakid. -- Armond Warblade 06:17, 5 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::Is this resolved? — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta]] 19px (talk| ) 23:18, 9 October 2007 (CEST) Resolved. — Skakid9090 01:25, 11 October 2007 (CEST) :Oh, I thought that we were still arguing over a deleted build. :D Lord Belar 01:27, 11 October 2007 (CEST) Can you please take a look at Bob fregman's vote? It doesn't have very much reasoning behind it... The Paintballer (T/ ) 19:09, 6 October 2007 (CEST) :Bad builds deserve low ratings imo. -- Armond Warblade 19:16, 6 October 2007 (CEST) ::This deserves a low vote, but it also deserves a decent reason why. Lord Belar 20:21, 6 October 2007 (CEST) :::Reason: "It's not good". Why go into huge detail when the voter feels that every part of the build fails? That said, if any other admin feels I'm going about this the wrong way, I'll step down from this. -- Armond Warblade 23:05, 6 October 2007 (CEST) Request to remove all votes. Monk was rewriten and the voting 0-0-0 is wrong. They are all based on Tycn's vote who states that Paragons would have a higer dmg output which is not the case. Kastore 15:42, 9 October 2007 (CEST) :Except it is, and he's right on all accounts. -- Armond Warblade 02:28, 11 October 2007 (CEST) Skakid9090's only reason for pure zeros was "horrible assassin build" —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' Rach ( ) }. :First of all, sign your comments. Second of all, it's not uncommon to see votes which simply state either "Excellent Build" or "Terrible Build." If a voter believes that a build is so bad that it cannot be fixed, then, "Terrible Build" is an accurate assessment of the builds capabilities. You may if you wish ask Skakid to elaborate on his vote; however, I am disinclined to remove a legitimate vote. Unless you can demonstrate that his vote flagrantly misrepresents the builds capabilities or is biased, then the vote is legitimate (see Real Vetting). [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 06:06, 14 October 2007 (CEST) ::Lol sorry, I usually do sign my votes, just forgot --Rach 06:39, 14 October 2007 (CEST) Bob gives 0 Innovation for my build, while this is the only Warrior's build using Soldier's Stance, he btw is screwing up my other builds rating as well.. Build:Rt/E WoQ Support Rit by saying that my build is unfocused and that the skills are redundant. Which is complete nonsense, WoQ has never been used before, the explaination about the build says how you need to use it, it's very focused and the skills are perfect for the build, Essence Strike to maintain energy together with GoLE, Splinter for AoE and Warmonger for full interrupt. I kindly ask to delete both rates. Tomoko 12:15, 11 October 2007 (CEST) :By voting 0 in innovation, he means the skills look kind of thrown together (which they do). As for the WoQ build, he voted 4-4-4, and the build still has an overall 4.90 - hardly bringing it down. I would suggest you read PvX:OWN. -- Armond Warblade 17:47, 11 October 2007 (CEST) ::Tbh and the other 9 people agree with me, it should be 5-5-5 and he has just a lame excuse to destroy the 5-5-5 Tomoko 21:08, 11 October 2007 (CEST) :::To be honest who gives a crap? =\ It's still in the "excellent" category, most people who view the site won't even look at the ratings to see what part of excellent it is. He's entitled to his opinion, I'm not going to squash on it. Bring me hard proof that he's deliberately being malicious in his 4-4-4 vote and I'll remove it. Until then, I don't stomp on other people's opinions. -- Armond Warblade 21:13, 11 October 2007 (CEST) ::::Quick recharging monks and nukers and SS'ers, AoE Damage full, and Warmongers full which 1) does not show in any kind of build, and you are able to easily maintain your energy, he said.. AoE and Warmongers is good, but the rest is just thrown in there, thats just bolony, you support in Damage with Ancestors and, maintain your Energy with GoLE and Essence Strike, i agree those are used in some builds but still this usage of the build is 1 of a kind, and if you give even a 4-4-4 on that, thats bolony Tomoko 21:27, 11 October 2007 (CEST) :::::I believe it's spelled bologna. ;) (just trying to add a little levity.) — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 21:29, 11 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::Tomoko, should I remove your vote because I don't think rits should play support? That's basically what you're asking me to do to his vote, but with different reasoning. -- Armond Warblade 21:47, 11 October 2007 (CEST) :Thats not the same, he says the build is unbalanced and not that rits should'nt play supports, whatever a Warrior using Daggers or a Staff, if it works why not? this is just a plain false rating. Tomoko 22:08, 11 October 2007 (CEST) ::Just took a look - where's the 9 5-5-5's you were talking about?? I just see 2 kinda so-so rates... — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:12, 11 October 2007 (CEST) :::He means . And he doesn't say the build is unbalanced or that rits should't play supports, he says that he feels the build does not deserve a 5-5-5. Quit moaning, he's entitled to your opinion just as you're entitled to yours. It is not a false vote, it is a matter of opinion like every other vote on this site. -- Armond Warblade 22:21, 11 October 2007 (CEST) ::::I understand it's a matter of opiniong, but I'm not sure what on this build could be considered 'redundant'... — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 22:27, 11 October 2007 (CEST)